Protecting Animals Is One of Human Beings’ Biggest Obligations

Animal rights is the philosophy and social movement advocating that non-human animals should not be treated as property and should have basic rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and freedom from suffering. This perspective is based on the belief that sentient animals have moral worth independent of their utility to humans. Consequently, animal rights advocates oppose the use of animals for food, clothing, entertainment, and experimentation, as well as factory farming and other forms of exploitation.

Animal rights are as vital and valuable as human rights. Therefore, we need to be caring and gracious to all animals. We should remember that Gautama Buddha once said, “Non-violence and love to all living beings is the greatest act to do.” This saying by Gautama Buddha lays emphasis on the importance of loving all creatures. People should keep away from hurting animals without appropriate reasons.

According to Wikipedia, animal rights is the idea in which some, or all, non-human animals are entitled to the possession of their own existence and that their most basic interests—such as the need to avoid suffering—should be afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human beings. That is, animals have the right to be treated as the individuals they are, with their own desires and needs, rather than as unfeeling property.

World Animal Day is observed every year on 4th October but this day is hardly known in some countries including Bangladesh.

Its advocates opposing the assignment of moral value and fundamental protections on the basis of species membership alone—an idea known since 1970 as speciesism, when the term was coined by Richard D. Ryder—arguing that it is a prejudice as irrational as any other. They maintain that animals should no longer be viewed as property or used as food, clothing, research subjects, entertainment, or beasts of burden. Multiple cultural traditions around the world such as Jainism, Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism and Animism also espouse some forms of animal rights.

In parallel to the debate about moral rights, animal law is now widely taught in law schools in North America, and several prominent legal scholars, such as Steven M. Wise and Gary L. Francione, support the extension of basic legal rights and personhood to non-human animals. The animals most often considered in arguments for personhood are hominoids. This is supported by some animal rights academics because it would break through the species barrier, but opposed by others because it predicates moral value on mental complexity, rather than on sentience alone. As of November 2019, 29 countries have currently enacted bans on hominoid experimentation, and Argentina has granted a captive orangutan basic human rights since 2014.

Critics of animal rights argue that nonhuman animals are unable to enter into a social contract, and thus cannot be possessors of rights, a view summed up by the philosopher Roger Scruton, who writes that only humans have duties, and therefore only humans have rights. Another argument, associated with the utilitarian tradition, is that animals may be used as resources so long as there is no unnecessary suffering; they may have some moral standing, but they are inferior in status to human beings, and any interests they have may be overridden, though what counts as "necessary" suffering or a legitimate sacrifice of interests varies considerably. Certain forms of animal rights activism, such as the destruction of fur farms and animal laboratories by the Animal Liberation Front, have also attracted criticism, including from within the animal rights movement itself, as well as prompted reaction from the U.S. Congress with the enactment of laws allowing these activities to be prosecuted as terrorism, including the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

Aristotle stated that animals lacked reason (logos), and placed humans at the top of the natural world, yet the respect for animals in ancient Greece was very high. Some animals were considered divine, e.g. dolphins. In the Book of Genesis 1:26 (5th or 6th century BCE), Adam is given "dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Dominion need not entail property rights, but it has been interpreted, by some, over the centuries to imply ownership.

Contemporary philosopher Bernard Rollin writes that "dominion does not entail or allow abuse any more than does dominion a parent enjoys over a child." Rollin further states that the Biblical Sabbath requirement promulgated in the Ten Commandments "required that animals be granted a day of rest along with humans. Correlatively, the Bible forbids 'plowing with an ox and an ass together' (Deut. 22:10–11). According to the rabbinical tradition, this prohibition stems from the hardship that an ass would suffer by being compelled to keep up with an ox, which is, of course, far more powerful. Similarly, one finds the prohibition against 'muzzling an ox when it treads out the grain' (Deut. 25:4–5), and even an environmental prohibition against destroying trees when besieging a city (Deut. 20:19–20). These ancient regulations, virtually forgotten, bespeak of an eloquent awareness of the status of animals as ends in themselves", a point also corroborated by Norm Phelps.

The philosopher and mathematician Pythagoras (c. 580–c. 500 BCE) urged respect for animals, believing that human and nonhuman souls were reincarnated from human to animal, and vice versa. Against this, Aristotle (384–322 BCE), student to the philosopher Plato, said that nonhuman animals had no interests of their own, ranking them far below humans in the Great Chain of Being. He was the first to create a taxonomy of animals; he perceived some similarities between humans and other species, but stated for the most part that animals lacked reason (logos), reasoning (logismos), thought (dianoia, nous), and belief (doxa).

Theophrastus (c. 371 – c. 287 BCE), one of Aristotle's pupils, argued that animals also had reasoning (logismos) and opposed eating meat on the grounds that it robbed them of life and was therefore unjust. Theophrastus did not prevail; Richard Sorabji writes that current attitudes to animals can be traced to the heirs of the Western Christian tradition selecting the hierarchy that Aristotle sought to preserve.

Plutarch (1 C. CE) in his Life of Cato the Elder comments that while law and justice are applicable strictly to men only, beneficence and charity towards beasts is characteristic of a gentle heart. This is intended as a correction and advance over the merely utilitarian treatment of animals and slaves by Cato himself.

Tom Beauchamp (2011) writes that the most extensive account in antiquity of how animals should be treated was written by the Neoplatonic philosopher Porphyry (234–c. 305 CE), in his On Abstinence from Animal Food, and On Abstinence from Killing Animals.

The animal protection act which was passed in 2019 will hopefully raise awareness among the grassroots people of Bangladesh and will motivate people to look after animals in a generous way.

Animals are sometimes slaughtered for religious purposes. This thing should not be done in public. Even one animal should not be slaughtered in front of another creature. It looks inhuman. The government should specify certain locations or buildings inside which animals can be slaughtered. Animals should not be slaughtered in presence of children or people with weak hearts.

There are several literary masterpieces which characterize animals and birds from which we can learn precious lessons. Wild creatures are the most vital part of natural environment. In the present world most of the countries are working hard to protect wild animals to preserve ecological balance. So, safeguarding domestic as well as wild animals is indispensable to ensure the smooth living of human beings on earth.

Although there have been considerable advancements in animal welfare, the animal rights movement still faces challenges. Legal and societal shifts have resulted in better protections against animal cruelty and exploitation, but enforcement remains weak, welfare considerations for farmed animals are lacking, and few countries officially recognize animal sentience in law. Nevertheless, the movement has made significant progress by banning certain cruel practices, improving living conditions for animals, and shifting public opinion.

Animal rights laws vary significantly among countries, states, and jurisdictions. Although most countries still do not recognize animal rights or sentience, several have implemented laws to protect certain species against cruelty and neglect. Laws range from basic anti-cruelty protections to more nuanced regulations designed to address animal treatment in specific contexts. Companion animals tend to receive greater protection than farmed and wild animals, as industries routinely challenge new and existing legislation.

The modern-day animal rights movement traces back to the Industrial Revolution, when rapid industrialization and urbanization spurred massive changes across Europe and North America. People began to question the treatment of workers and animals in this new industrial era, leading to the first organized animal advocacy efforts.

The irony is that some ways of thinking about animal rights are more likely to lead to the protection of our own species, and a healthy and safe environment, than traditional forms of environmentalism and environmental law. By focusing their concern primarily on human welfare as it relates to the environment, and how to make the planet healthy, safe and sustainable for a growing number of humans, many environmentalists have become trapped in a never ending debate about what constitutes an acceptable level of risk to humans, whether the science exists to prove such a risk, and how to define what a healthy, safe and sustainable planet looks like.

Many environmentalists wait to see evidence of harm to humans through changes in the environment; they would have done better by protecting animals from the changes themselves. Had environmentalists in the past adopted a standard of nonhuman autonomy, thinking about each animal’s interest in being let alone in their natural habitat rather than humans’ interest in their own welfare, we would ourselves be better off today.  Is it karma that humans’ selfishly ignoring the interests of animals has led to our own endangerment? Who knows—but environmentalists might reconsider the role of animal rights in their thinking, and whether it is possible to protect the environment without protecting—and more importantly freeing—the nonhuman creatures that inhabit it.

Law is built by humans using the theories they have. When those theories were racist, laws were racist. When theories of sex and gender excluded women, conventional laws did the same thing. And there is no denying that most political thought by humans the world over has been human-centered, excluding animals. Even the theories that purport to offer help in the struggle against abuse are deeply defective, built on an inadequate picture of animal lives and animal striving.


Mahfuz Ul Hasib Chowdhury is a
contributor to different English
newspapers and magazines.